tv [untitled] November 27, 2013 2:30am-3:01am PST
>> has your client allowed to be in contact with an organization called rebuilding together? >> it has. >> then are they helping her? >> what? i would have to refer to her on that, but my understanding of her talks with rebuilding together, was that they did not have availability to assist her. and that is mostly the problem that i have run into in trying to get her assistance that either she does not qualify for it, for some reason or another. and generally based on her age, or, that the funding is no longer there. >> and how about the mayor's office of housing? >> also been in contact with them, and the discussions that i had with, i don't know everybody he name. mark. >> yes. >> and led me to believe that they were going to be able to assist for a certain aspect of the periods and not to include but i understand to be the principals at this point and being the roof. and but you have no applied?
>> this is just a conversation. with marv? >> yeah, come on up. >> did you apply with the mayor's office? >> yes, we have to finish doing the violations that i can correct myself, before i can go through the whole application, like clearing the debris. like what we have done all of the yard work in the back and the exterior ones and all of that, they don't do any yard work and we are rebuildings together or for the mayor's office on housing, so i have been doing all of that myself which is basically as of the next inspection that i have with the department of public health and the fire department is going to be the last one for the exterior. number 12. so perhaps just i think that the program that the mayor's office of housing is financing and they will not actually do the work for you. >> but they will not do the roof. there are things on the violations that i have to connect before i can do the program. the interior.
>> and i am elible. >> forgive me and so it does not preinclude you from applying and so you should apply. and then you can negotiate with them, what you can or cannot fit into the scope of work with the financing but you know in terms of what rose mary said is what we need from you is a time line, like doable and understandable. and so, getting the financing for the stuff that you know that you already need does not preinclude you from then getting other resources elsewhere, but i would suggest that that should be the first thing that you do. and as apply for it and make sure that you, will, you know, get it and i think that you are eligible, and so you know, maybe you can help out with that. >> absolutely. >> and maybe, this is a mistake in understanding, but my understanding based on the discussions with marv let me to believe that the financing is not available. >> yeah, he came out to my house and i met with him and i have to do other things before
i can put in the application. >> is seems like the things other than the construction costs it seems like a lot of the violations are for the i don't know, what to call it, is the amount of stuff that is in the house, and so, it seems like, a lot of that is cleaning, or clean up, of the removal of a lot of the items that are improperly stored that would cause fire hazards and other problems. so, i am a little bit weary
about what has been done to remove the stuff and it has not occur the construction cost or inquire the permit and just cleaning up the stuff. and so yeah i have been doing it. >> okay. >> you know, so, i... and without the inspecters going in, i don't know how long it has been. and they, the pictures that we have before us, it looks like these that would be the main commission. , which areas are to be included and if it is a matter to walk through the areas that are problematic at this point and we are happy to facilitate
that and with these, concerns, and i am sure that you probably have some experience, and it is not simply a matter of parking a dumpster in front of a house and having somebody haul this out and put it in the dumpster, and there is more of a process to that, and that involves the home owner's time the house is vacant and clean up efforts to be prepared to allow another inspection and target the particular areas that may be of concern for a fire hazard. you know, i see some of those pictures and i see, areas that perhaps, don't look as nice as they could and i see other areas that maybe potential fire hazards and so the team that is in charge of the clean up, it could be done without warranting it an order of
abatement. >> the department of public health and with the folks who have a lot of stuff and so, i don't know if that has been, or made available to mr. free man and his clients but i think that we can, you know, provide assistance in that way, in terms of hooking the folks up with the resources, and and i think that it is important that we have a time line because this can go on for a long time. and the further liability from the folks around her who are being impacted and we don't want that. and maybe you can address that. what you think is doable in terms of the time line, if we were to, you know, extend, the
time before, we you know, whether you think that it is doable here. >> well, at this particular moment efforts are focused on getting the roof fixed because of the pending, and that made as a focus as we understood it and so it is our hope to be able to have that roof, addressed, within the next month. and, from there, look towards these interior issues of cleaning up the things on the inside and then since we are doing the interior repairs, and but if the financing is going to be pursued and obtained through the mayor's office that is going to take the time as well. and so, you know, assuming that efforts could be made and get this roof done within the next month, and perhaps two months. and i would hope to have, maybe six months time to focus on the interior issues, and you know the home owners made the steps to getting these things done.
and it is a matter of coming up with the money and allow her to do the repairs and does not have the money to do it. so i am... and so given the best guess here in terms of the six month completing date to get this all done with an eye towards getting the roof done immediately so that there is no real danger of the property falling down. without having to worry about this water coming in. >> and go ahead. >> still kind of bothered by a time line and the pictures. and because to me, it is actually as simple as pulling the dumpster up and everything in the house and especially if no one lives in there now, if they are worried about what the roof is going to cost and that will go a long way in showing the good faith.
>> it is not that simple, and if it was we would have gotten it done and these items would have been taken out and i will be happy to discuss these issues in a more confidential setting but i don't think that this is the appropriate setting for us to have that discussion. i hope that you can appreciate that as a policy making body and looking at this appeal and whether or not it is within the criteria, and our responsibility, you know, to have empathy for your client and i want to try to work and we also have a responsibility to the building code. and to all of the property
owners around it. and so, it is on us to make sure that things get done, and that there is a time line that is reasonable for everyone. and you know? >> i completely agree and i understand that. and i look at the history a little bit differently than it is presented in this staff report and i see some progress, and it is not there and the houses are secure from the trespassers and there are efforts made in the clean ups and i understand the timetable is not what we would like but, you know, there have been significant efforts and it is taking more time than we would all like. and so i am happy to fill the time for us to meet and i understand that there is already an inspection set next month for other purposes. or that we certainly have no objection of providing access earlier or if that is an issue. >> thank you very much. >> to the chair, just a clarification, that tree was
removed on who paid for that? >> we did. >> but it paid for itself. >> yeah. >> so, in your statement, you know, we have had to pay for the removal of the tree, not the home own sner >> well, the tree, to clarify the tree came down, i believe at the city's... >> the tree came down not at our response, i agree with that. >> but in the yard that the home owner then significant efforts to remove over the course of the next few months. >> all right. >> thank you very much. >> rose mary, if you will be so kind. >> thank you, and just a couple of things, the city dbi is not asking for improvements we are asking the property owner to address long standing issues of not maintaining the property and so it is maintenance and cleaning and sanitation and it is my understanding that dpw wrote the notice, posted the building and did not get a
response on the tree, there have been took it down in the large portions away but not all of it. and so the property owner did do that. but it was the city that had to take the action and absorb the cost and put that cost on the property owner so this the pattern that we are seeing with this property and i don't know what the property owner's goal is. and do they want to have it as rental property and does she want to occupy it, and i am not sure, but it is clear to us that we have a history here where the property is and great neglect and it is impacting the opportunity surrounding this property. and we don't think that the amount of work that has gone on, is sufficient, given the fact that this was referred to the city attorney last year. and that we have had none of this going back on at least the exterior issues back to 201 on. here we are now, 2012, with very little to show for it. and all that we can agree as to whether or not a suspension has
been facilitated and we have the existing notices of violation or it should be clear and i want to thank the commissioners for the questions because they are probative to the issue of why hasn't an application been applied for to get the assistance and the research shows that the city is not encumbered and sore expect to see more movement and i would like to see somebodisinger kind of action plan, and within 15 days you are going to do this, and 30 days, and you know, like i said, 15 day increment. we are here now and i think that it is reasonable to have an order issues and so that the individuals who may be looking to purchase this property have you know, if or whatever, know that in any kind of a situation, what or how, what kind of notices of violation, it has on it. but i will be more than happy to do a subornation if he needs
to do that as far as taking the money out of the property and we do have the program. but, aside from that, we do see that we need to have some movement and we are not seeing really anything concrete. and that is our concern, what do we tell the adjacent property owners that are not concerned. >> and i am sorry. and so this is all to last year. and we referred it to the march of last year but we had a notice of violation opened on the exterior over the property from 2010, and then it reached.
>> the first or secondarily, but i think that commissioners you raised the issue and beyond the scope of maybe, this property is already going to need assistance and i don't think that she can do this on her own and so that is why we tried to give her time and encourage an action plan through the assistance of a representative and so we can do that if they will let us in, we are happy to do that, because we do want to do an inspection but we strongly feel that absent some kind of a workable plan that the hearing officer, should be upheld and that the order should be reported. >> and so, can i just walk you through a possible action. if we were to up hold the notice of violation and then the property owner goes and applies for it and then, alone, and alone from the mayor's office of housing and maybe the abatement and the money and that
>> i have a reported order, if anything that might help to expedite that process, if they want to go to a regular bank and get a loan and then we have the subordination process that we will walk and offer him through that and if she needed that and so if, you know, we are definitely going to work with them but we need to see some movement. >> okay. >> did you want to say something? >> well, unless someone else does. >> i would like before we get into this, is there anybody from the public comment? before we make the decision in >> is there public comment on this item?
>> >> okay. go ahead, commissioner mar. >> i would like to move that again, because there is no dispute, of the violations i put forward by the staff, i would like to up hold the order of abatement and i would like to actually have the staff go back into the property to get another inspection, within 15 days to see if at least some of the debris has been removed. which is ticking off some of the violations, it does not all have to happen. right away. but at least for those things that are possible, in the amount of time within, you know, 15 days, that all of the debris in the property, is out of there. because it is a empty property and no one is living there. so actually, that is what i would like to propose. >> so i second the motion to up
hold the notice of violation. >> order of abatement. >> i am sorry. >> and to allow 15 days to complete the work. >> so your debris part. yeah. >> and because it does not require any permits and it does not require any... >> yeah. >> so i am sorry. i cannot second that part of your motion. >> so i will withdraw my second. >> do you have... so... >> do you have a suggestion? >> i actually think that those issues about people's staff are very complicated especially for elderly folks and there are all sorts of issues that we in the department are not equipped to deal with. i think that it is much better dealt with by someone at the department of public health and i don't know what 15 days is enough. so i would support up holding the order of abatement and i
would encourage, rose mary and her staff to put together a little working group just one meeting or two with the folks that no one in dph and the representatives and see, and if we can come up with a working time line, but with the time ticking. and with the order of abatement that is there but i would not put a time line on that if you would commissioner mar. >> and just to clarify to the order of abatement, currently states that the appellant has 7 days to complete all work praoerp building permits required. that is the way that it reads right now. >> and what can i go with the conflict. and the 15 days is kind of fair. >> yeah. >> and you know, i, i think, i think that my feeling right now, based on the presentation here today, and i don't see very much hardship here and i
don't understand why this house is not cleared out. and so i will be just to up hold the abatement and stick to the guidelines that are in front of us on how that should be performed. >> so commissioner mar made the motion and are you seconding it? >> with the opportunity and let me see the clarification, and remember the 7 days that are for, the permit to fix the roof. >> and or for everything? >> everything. >> and it is perhaps the staff would clarify the way that i am reading the order of abatement to complete all work,. >> and rose mary, could you come back up, again? sorry? >> so 7 days to complete all of the work? that is your recommendation? >> that is it. >> that is the recommendation when we went to the director's hearing. but the thing that you do based on what i am hearing based on the commission what you are hearing what we should report is this is a city attorney case
now and so the prop owner in comply with the order of abatement has connotations and in the fairness of both sides and so i want you to consider that respect to this and so you could say you could amend the order to say all work based on the presentation and all work that is record must occur within 30 days and you can say that if you wanted and that will give her time to, in the 30 days it could be done in that and given what needs to be done and the because we could make the referral also to through the agency, within the city agency but there is an agency that has a work grouper a mentor group that deals with the types of issues which i can definitely put the information on, and then you could work with them on the reinspections but it depends on what you want
to say, if you say seven you will lock her into a area that has more consequences because it is a city attorney case and i want to bring that to your attention and so if you want to say that everything needs to be done in 60 days, and maybe that is more realistic, and you know, but that is the order which means that the order reports whether she is violating the order and the only context there, the connotation there is if she breaches the order it would have to deal with whether we filed the lawsuit. and civil penalties under that, and so we just want you to understand that so if you want to, as far as i am concerned, if they move on this, if you want to give them 60 days, and the issue the order so that we have something recorded on the property, i think that would be fair. >> but that would give her some time, given that if she gets the assistance and i don't know how long it will take for her once she applied to get a loan, but there are things that could be done on the property while she is waiting for that and we need to see the movement. so if you want to say, 60 days
and then maybe that will be more reasonable, given what could happen. we have not filed a lawsuit yet but that might help. >> okay, commissioner? >> i will sympathetic to what you mentioned about the (inaudible) and but, however, i also feel that having it open-ended does not encourage the home owner to seek help or seek the system and so by, at the same time i think that 7 days or even 15 days might be a little too fast. so i might be enclined to say 30 days, which would be kind of a midway point to help to encourage the home owner to seek the assistance and maybe with our message it will help whoever is helping her to know that we are serious. >> okay. >> and all right, go ahead. >> i would just be amenable to modify my motion to commissioner lee's motion. and to up hold the order of
abatement, for 30 days. >> and could i ask rose mary, there is a clarification, if we say this as the motion as it is on the floor, 30 days, that means 30 days completed work, right? and so that means in 30 days she has to go through all of the mayor's process and do the work? which is a lot >> the order is peeking to the issue what is before you is complying with the notice of violation, so whatever she needs to do to do that, that will be up to her. >> right. >> that is independent of that. i definitely would discourage you to condition that and says that she has to bring it up there and empty the building
within so many days and with that with the violations that are articulated it is clear, that she violates the issue is going to be subject to several penalties under the housing code if we... or if there is some kind of a discussion between her and the city attorney, and we know in some ways the city attorney is free to do that because we refer it to the city attorney, but it was 30 days, and it is better for her than 7 and it is reasonable. >> and so if we were to, you know, in front of this, everybody agrees, 30 days, and within 30 days, the property owner